Slashdot Mirror
Best 35mm SLR Camera for Beginners?
TibbonZero asks: "I've been thinking of getting into photography, but want to stay with 35mm film instead of going digital. Used 35mm SLRs seem to be the best bet, but which ones should I seriously consider? I would like to spend less than $200 on the camera itself, and start off with some cheaper lenses. It seems to me like there's still a lot more bang for your buck in film vs digital cameras at this point, even with film processing costs (I have almost a whole darkroom setup that my father used to use). I think I want a manual focus camera." Don't forget, a 35mm camera (film or digital) would make a nice Christmas Gift for that budding photographer in your life!
Centon make great beginner cameras, they are part of the jessops brand who are the largest photographic company in Europe.
Nearly every school recommends their cameras when students sign up for photograpy degrees.
Check out some of their models here
Both Canon and Nikon offer digital SLR bodies for when you are ready, and used equipment is easy to find (unlike some of the other manufacturers).
Keep in mind a few things:
For what it's worth, I recently replaced an old Olympus system with a Canon system. Rebel 2000 body, Elan 7e body, 28-90mm lens, and 100-300mm lens. It's been great. At some point I will buy a digital body too.
tons of them around.
tons of lens' for them around.
proven to last.
Photography is expensive.
One of the most rugged budget SLRs ever made, and great value for the money.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
I recently went through this issue myself and ended up settling on the Nikon N65. My reasons were somewhat arbitrary, but I have been happy.
I preferred it over similar Canon models becuase it has the ring that holds the lens is made of metal instead of plastic and it just feels sturdier. Also Nikon tends to make slightly better lenses than Canon.
I preferred it over the N55 becuase it has a depth-of-field preview button, which I come to deeply appreciate.
But mostly I picked it becuase it was around $100 (without any lenses) and I read lots of good reviews.
Hope that helps!
I got a Pentax Asahi off of eBay, and have loved it. Very nice camera.
The reason not to go digital, incidentally, is that digital cameras still come nowhere near the resolution of regular film. Also, if you have access to a darkroom, there's lots of stuff you can do there that's just not the same done on photoshop.
It's the same reason not all artists grabbed their styluses and switched to the tablet PC.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
Though this probably should be asked elsewhere...
Most cameras are competitive with each other. The big boys always introduce cameras that more or less compete directly with cameras from the other companies. Witness the Elan 7 and N80 coming out at right about the same time.
And also, with SLRs, you buy into a system. Remember that lenses and accessories are not compatible across marques.
This leads me to: if you have a close friend or family member with an SLR, get one in the same family. The ability to share lenses and gear with them will generally override any small differences between cameras.
If you don't have anyone, then I'd say pick up a cheap Nikon or Canon. My opinion (flame wars begone) is that the greater ability to rent and borrow matching equipment negates any differences in bodies. Every 3rd party lens has Nikon and Canon EF mounts available.
Don't think of the body. The body is just a lens holder. You may go through multiple, or want a backup body. Get a 50mm lens, preferably as your first lens. Good for low light, good cheap lens so spend more money on film. Lack of zoom makes you move around instead of cheating with the zoom. You'll get different pictures as you learn to move and change angles.
Right now, I'd probably pick the N65 or N55 if you like Nikon, or the Rebel Ti or the Rebel K2 (don't hink the K2 is generally available yet) if you';re a canon guy. A Rebel GII with 50MM lens should cost you around $200, fairly low technology, but about as much as you'd pay for a low end point and shoot.
The beginner's camera is (and has been for years) the Pentax K-1000. It's pretty much the defacto standard for students and beginning photographers.
It's been discontinued recently -- but you can pick 'em up at photo, pawn shops or ebay very reasonably.
You won't find a better or more sturdy camera for a beginner (I did photography professionally for quite a while, so I have *some* knowledge in this realm.)
Failing that, go Nikon over Minolta and Canon (in that order).
If you're concerned about how much you will spend on film, buy a bulkloader. It's not to hard to use and way cheaper than buying individual rolls.
Pentax has a variety of different lenses that are usually interchangeable between different models but beware that older cameras are screw mount and newer models are snap mount. It might be harder to find lots of screw mount lenses on the used market since they are no longer made. I would recommend gettng a snap mount body.
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
I'm not sure the auto-everything cameras are that much faster. Once you have something like a K1000 dialed in to where you think the action will be, you can get a picture from it as soon as you stab the shutter. With nearly any auto-whatever camera, the camera will spend a second or more making sure the focus, exposure, etc. are correct before it finally takes the picture. You might be able to speed things up by overriding stuff you know won't change (when taking pictures at an airshow, for instance, you can leave the focus locked at infinity), but then you're not doing things any differently than you would with an all-manual camera.
(I need to have my K1000 looked at sometime...the film-used counter resets by itself, and I think the pictures it's taking now aren't as sharp as they used to be. That last bit might be my imagination, though, or maybe it's the film processor...I should probably run some slide film through it and see how those pictures turn out. Most of my picture-taking has shifted to a Coolpix 995, but it'd be nice to have the K1000 as a backup. Besides, I have wider and longer lenses for it, as well as filters and other fun stuff.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
It's a bit out of your budget (I think it runs about $250-275 in most places), but it's a good beginning camera - I and many of my friends have one each. You might be able to pick up a used one for $200 or less. I'd strongly urge scrimping together the extra cash and laying out for one, though.
;) When compared to other entry level cameras, it's certainly a heavyweight contender, despite its light body (it's only about 6 ounces). Many people are kind of turned off by this, claiming that it's fragile, but again, if you're an amateur, you're not taking this thing rock climbing with you, are you? If you actually want to do sports photography, or want to bring it into other situations where it needs to be pretty sturdy, you should be looking at pro-level cameras, like Nikon F-series anyway.
The lens it comes with stock (28-80mm zoom) isn't one of Canon's higher quality ones, but it still gets excellent shots when used properly - very good on the bang/buck ratio. I've taken some great pictures with it.
The camera has several modes, some of which are fully automatic (which I find useful at family gatherings or whenver I just want to take pictures of friends, etc, quickly), but has plenty of semi-automatic and fully manual modes that allow you to do more artistic stuff when you're into that too.
Plus, whenever you're ready to get more serious, all Canon EF-mount lenses will fit it. (A very wide selection is available.)
Frankly, though, this is the wrong place to ask -- look around on Google for "camera reviews"; there are many websites that discuss photography as or more in-depth than people here discuss linux distributions, and you'll get a better feel for what serious photo enthusiasts and professionals use/like/dislike/etc. photozone.de is a good place to start.
(For what it's worth, most reviews I've read of the Rebel-2000 only ever had complaints when they were comparing the camera to something like the Elan, or another camera that cost twice as much. Well, no crap it doesn't have as many features -- you're not paying to get them!
By far above anything else, however, the most important factor of a camera is: how does it feel to you? I took the Rebel over the entry-level Nikon because I just felt more comfortable with it. Most camera shops will let you shoot a roll or play with cameras they've got for sale -- you should only go to camera shops that will let you play with the merchendise. If you like a used Pentax over this, then go for it. If you'd prefer the Nikon, that'd be fine too -- you're the one who has to hold it and position it and line it all up: you better like doing it!
Good luck!
/. really isn't the best place to go to find answers about this question. You may want to try the following websites:
Photo.net
THE professional photographer's website with TONS of information about different cameras, tips, whole articles on how to get that perfect picture, and learning how to get the most out of whatever camera you have. I've found it to be the diffinitive starting point for any information about photography.
Digital Photography Review
If you plan on getting a digital camera, this site is considered the digital camera authority.
Hope these help you and any other would-be amateur photographers out there.
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I.
I know a lot of people here are going to recommend the Pentax K1000, but don't listen to them. The thing is, as much as you think you do, you really don't want "manual everything." You just want the option of manual operation. The Pentax ME Super looks and feels very similar to the K1000 (it's a manual focus, classy-looking rugged metal body), but it has better specs in every category, weighs less and is slightly smaller, and has the option of an aperture-priority mode, which you definitely want. As soon as you learn about shutter speed and aperture you will very quickly get sick of having to take your eye away from the viewfinder to get all your settings right, which basically amounts to turning a knob in an awkward position on the top of the camera until a needle floats into the right position. However, for those few instances where you choose not to trust the meter, the ME Super has a fully manual mode as well. Best of both worlds.
Pentax is definitely the way to go, though. The manual lenses (especially the later A-series) are top notch and definitely on par with Nikkor from the same era. It's photography's best-kept secret. And the best part is, if you later want to upgrade to a more serious autofocus body (like the MZ-S) or a digital SLR (like the new *ist-D) the lenses are fully compatible, unlike Nikon which has decided to cripple old lenses on their newer midrange cameras. Old Canon FD lenses won't even mount on the new EOS bodies...
My suggestion is to buy an entry-level SLR of Canon or Nikon that has a full manual mode.
Both Canon and Nikon's SLR lenses can be used on their digital SLR lines and Nikon lenses can also be used on D-SLRs from Fujifilm and Kodak.
Your idea of a manual focus camera might be OK from a creative viewpoint, but when you are taking party pictures or want to take some quick shots without a lot of fuss, I've found autofocus useful and necessary in order to capture the moment. Both Nikon and Canon allow you to defeat AF and switch the lenses to manual focus when you need to.
For Canon SLRs, look at http://www.canoneos.com/index.html
For Nikon, look at http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp =6
Another important thing is to buy from a fairly reputed dealer who won't try to bait-and-switch you or saddle you down with low quality 'accessories' as part of your special purchase deal.
I recommend B & H Photo and Video or Adorama
B & H has the Canon EOS Rebel GII with a beginner's lens on sale for $199.95, and the
Nikon N55 with a slightly better lens for $229.95
If you have a little more money to spend, I'd recommend you get one of these SLR bodies with a slightly more decent lens, such as a 28-105 F3.5-4.5. In my experience I've found that my lenses are the bottleneck rather than the capabilities of the body. Invest in a decent lens or lenses up-front and you can be a lot more productive and creative from the start.
Krishna
--- I'd love to go out with you, but I have to study for a Turing test.
I'll second that. The Pentax K-1000 is an incredibly sturdy metal-body camera, and the Asdahi Optical lenses are (were) relatively inexpensive.
I you already have a Nikon in the family, you might consider a Nikkormat or a Nikon FM-2 (or whatever its succsessor might be), which are also dependable metal-body cameras, and you can use any Nikon lenses that you might already have.
I you newbie photog is just starting out, and has never handled a camera, you might want to consider buying a "thow-away" fixed-focus camera because it will force them to think more about framing and getting close to the subject (crop in the lens, not in the darkroom), which are often the biggest hurdles that young photographers face, and are better addressed early on, so as to develop good habits, rather than later, when the student will be more concerned with exposure, depth of feild, and shutter speed.
Read, L
For the rest of us, the acronym-impaired, SLR means "Single Lens Reflex".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLR
A similarly nice one is the Pentax P-30. It's a bit newer than the K1000, all manual, but still very good. Personally I think that *any* SLR from a company that you can still get lenses for is good. Remember that if you get a P30 at a swap meet for $25 or a brand new canon rebel for $400, the quality of the pictures comes from the photographer, not the camera. A better camera will *not* make you a better photographer, even though some of the features on the newer ones can make your life easier.
:)
I'm a big believer in learning the hard way first, and then use the auto-everything device to see how it is. Remember, if you never have to set your f-stop and shutter speed you won't have the knowledge to do interesting things with the new camera that is auto everything
Remember to think to your future, Do you want to be Re-Buying the lenses you have when you want to get a new body, If you like nikon but cant afford a Good Nikon, Dont go and buy a canon with hopes of buying a Nikon in the future...
Buy a low end of what ever system you want, then when you get a new body that has alot more features you can still use the lenses that you have.
and spend the money on the glass, thats where the picture really matters. If you get slow glass you will really be frustrated with having to search out something to steady your camera on in low light.
look for an older Nikon Not too old because they changed the mounts, and get yourself a 50mm 1.4 or a 1.2 lens if you can find one, start with that.
moo.
I've taken a non-intro photo class at a top-notch art school, and I can assure you that the camera was not the limiting factor in my work, and there were plenty of talented students doing great things with equally primitive equipment.
One thing that's worth noting about old cameras and lenses is that they've already done most of their depriciating. Start with one of the good old systems mentioned here, and if you decide in a year that you'd be better off with autofocus, or digital, or a view camera, or whatever (based on your actual experience with the camera), you can sell your kit and get about as much as you paid for it.
I would recommend Ansel Adams' series The Camera, The Negative, and The Print for learning the big picture of how your camera, lenses, meter, film, and paper work together, and how to get them to meet your creative vision. Even if you don't plan to do darkroom work yourself, it's good to have an understanding of what's going on. I am a technical person, and find Adams' writing to be very clear and satisfactorily detailed with a strong grounding in physical principles. His contributions to photographic education and technique are at least as important as his images. This series is pretty light on the creative aspects of photography, so you'll have to look elsewhere for that.
for a good flash and some filters. If you will be shooting landscapes you will want a polarizing filter and a yellow haze filter. Later you might want to add a tripod and a cable release. You'll want to buy a couple more lenses before long: a wide angle and a zoom. Then there's the bag to carry all the stuff. And don't forget the ROLLS AND ROLLS of film and the processing costs. Photography is fun, but expect to take a lot of lousy pictures even after you get good.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I see people saying "Pentax" or "Nikon" a lot. I perfer Canon. Any of these will honestly work well as long as it is solid, has minimal electronics, and manual everything. If the camera is older than about 20 years (not sure exact age cut/off) make sure that the light meter battery has been updated to take modern batteries and not old Mercury-based batteries.
Once you get a camera body, it's time to talk lenses. You "have to have" a fixed-focus lens. That is the basis for any set-up. Make sure it is at least mid-range quality. You're just starting and I doubt you will keep using that lens for a lifetime.
If you still have money to work with, consider a short zoom/macro lens. There is a whole world waiting to be explored and photographed at very close distances. You can't get those shots without a macro lense.
From my own experience, I have a Canon FtB body which has no electronics save a light meter. Shutter speeds go between 1 sec. to 1/1000 sec. if I remeber correctly (don't have the camera with me) plus a "bulb" setting. It has a shutter release lock, a self timer, and a mirror lock. This last is especially useful at slow shutter speed so that the only moving part is the actual shutter.
Do some research to determine what you "have to have" in a camera body then go to ebay to find the one you want. You can probably find lenses the same way. Also look for local consignment stores/pawn shops/used camera shops.
Happy photographing.
I started with a K-1000, but when it was $130 from K-mart in 1984. They aren't made anymore and are more expensive than warranted due to (overblown) reputation.
Yes, they're tough (mine still worked fine 4 years ago with no CLA (clean, lubricate and adjust) when I traded up to a Super Program), but they're lacking:
1) Crappy meter. Slow to react and wierdly non-linear at low light levels, so not good for existing light photography with an f/1.4 50mm lens & 400ASA film.
2) No depth of field (a.k.a. depth of focus) preview. This is a hard feature to learn how to use, but control of DOF is a big part of learning photography and one area where 35mm kicks the crap out of point-and-shoot digicams (which have small sensors, short focal lengths and deep DOF so hard to knock the background out of focus for portraits).
3) Slow flash sync (X) speed. 1/60th, right? Once you learn manual existing-light photography, you might want to try manual (guide number/focus distance) flash photography. For fill-flash (lighting up a face shaded by a hat brim or eyes shaded by brow), faster sync gives you flexibility.
[I actually don't recommend trying to learn to use bounce & other tricks to make flash look more natural on anything but digital unless you have a darkroom. Too much lag between exposure & result to figure out what you're doing]
4) rubberized-cloth fully mechanical shutter. This means the battery only powers the meter & the camera will work with no battery at all. However, it isn't as accurate as quartz-controlled metal blade shutters like in the SuperProgram.
That said, the Pentax line is nice because the lenses work on the new bodies (including their digital *ist), though sometimes metering doesn't work. Nikon is the only other mfg. that kept the mount the same when they went autofocus-- Canon & Minolta changed. Minolta still makes their manual focus cameras, though. Canon manuals are orphaned with parts getting harder to find.
---
Make sure you get a "fast" lens. 85mm or 100mm f/2 or 50mm f/1.4. It's damned hard to focus an f/2 50mm lens (which came on my K1000 originally) because the DOF wide-open is too deep to give you a "snappy" focus.
---
Oh and KEH for mail-order used.
Well, a Pentax would be ideal then, since (with a few exceptions) all Pentax-compatible lenses and cameras made since the mid-seventies are interoperable, with each combination allowing the use of all features common to both cameras.
Called Building a 35MM SLR System
Photo.net is one of the best resources for photography questions... I can get just as lost there as I can here reading the posts.
moo.
These are great all-manual no auto anything cameras and the best way to learn and understand concepts like exposure, bracketing exposures, light conditions, that will apply to any serious student of photography - film or digital.
Your're correct when you say there is great bang-for-the-buck in 35mm cameras now as well because only the most expensive digitals ($5000+) begin to even approach the "resolution" of 35mm film.
If you happen to be an amatuer astronomer, these cameras are highly sought after in the amatuer astronomy community because the all-manuals are the only cameras capable of keeping the shutter open for hours at a time. The new camera shutters are battery powered (and thus fails before the proper exposure has been achieved) and the digital SLR's aren't at all suited for deep-sky photogrpahy for a number of reasons that only very, very expensive CCD cameras address.
With having your own darkroom, you're ready to enjoy what I find is a really rewarding and fun hobby.
...is film selection.
If you're trying to learn the basics of photography, you'll need to learn how to master exposure. You'll also want the most pleasing visual results possible while doing so.
If you get your manual camera and proceed to shoot color negative film, you may never ever learn your mistakes, and your results will remain mediocre at best. This is because most color negative film is designed for people like grandma with P&S auto-everything cameras, so it needs to have a very, very wide exposure latitude to handle exposure errors of +/- 2 or 3 stops. This is fine if you just want decent prints from your vacation or family Christmas, but if you're trying to take real photographs, its limiting, since you'll never be able to figure out what, if, anything, you did wrong, and the colors are pretty dull compared to pro slide films. Sure, the prints will look properly exposed, but they will also look very dull compared to what you see in magazines and on posters.
If you want to learn exposure and get stunning results, use slide film. Since you wish to use your own darkroom, this may be more economical for you too, you'll just need some new chemicals. Slide film has a very narrow exposure latitude and produces positive images that can be viewed without an intermediate printing process that is usually performed by a high school kid earning minimum wage. Differences of 1/3 stop will be apparent so you'll be able to learn. On your properly exposed shots, you will get far fewer washed out skies. You will get colors so stunning colors that you will literally laugh with joy the first time you go through a set of slides. Want your landscapes colors to look as good as National Geographic's? Well first, be there when the light is good. Secondly, use Fuji Velvia. They do.
Depending on what you plan to shoot, I can recommend the following films:
Portraits/night shots: Fuji Astia 100/100F
Landscapes: Fuji Velvia/Kodak E100GX
General purpose: Fuji Provia 100F
All of these are super high resolution and fine grained. I've printed 35mm examples up to 10x15" with stunning results, and medium format Velvia shots up to 16x24 that look so good that you just can't possibly appreciate the difference medium format makes until you see it.
I recommend buying the film from B&H Photo Video or Adorama, since they have great prices compared to any local photo store (1/3 to 1/2 the price).
See my webpage for examples using these films.
Tcl my Pico! There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
I have used a Canon AE-1 for about 10 years and it's a great camera. You can pick one up for about $150 and there are tons of aftermarket lens to purchase (Canon lens' are expensive). I just had an overhaul done to mine and it's like brand new.
AE stands for Auto-Exposure, and you can also set the camera to full-manual mode. You can't wrong with this camera.
Canon AE-1 Program is the same camera with the ability to program it (don't know what you can program, I assume settings).
LoRider
No. The ones you're talking about is the M series IIRC.
f addenphoto.com/k1000.htm
The KX is a more solidly-built K1000 with SPD metering cells, mirror lock-up, DOF preview, self-timer, shutter lock, and aperture/shutter speed shown in viewfinder.
In a sense a K1000-plus.
Compare them here:
http://mcfaddenphoto.com/kx.htm
http://mc
Using an alakline battery, which will not produce consistent output and an accurate light meter reading.
Paying to have the camera modified to provide a correct light meter reading when using an alakaline battery.
Paying a few dollars more than I would for an alkaline battery to buy a Wein Zinc/Air battery that is specifically designed as a mercury battery replacement.
I choose to buy Wein batteries. However, Wein batteries are typically not available at your local photo shop.
Get a manual Nikon (the FM-3 is REALLY nice, or try for an FM-2 or even an older FG...if you were in Japan, I would offer to sell you my FG as I rarely use it in favor of my FA). There is one main reason why Nikon is better:
Nikon has not significantly changed their lens mount since the F-mount was created.
What does this mean for you? Well...let me tell you my situation. Right now, I have a Nikon FG (ca.1983) and a Nikon FA (ca.1984) as my camera bodies. I have a new auto-focus 50mm Nikon lens from 1999, a 70-300mm Nikon autofocus from 1998, a late 1980s (I think) Promaster 28mm, a 27.5mm extention tube (2000), and a bellows/slide duplicator from the 1960s. They all work with both bodies perfectly well (except of course I cannot take advantage of auto-focus).
The point is that you can use almost any F-mount lens with almost any Nikon camera (though you may have some small problems with early lenses, but then again, maybe not...do your homework). Canon, IIRC, has changed their lens mount a few times, so you don't really have the option of chosing an old body and new lens to start with and then perhaps upgrading the body in the future or using old lenses as well...
IMNSHO, that is why Nikon is better. ;-)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
Plastic mount won't restrict anything, just make you more cautious on changing lenses often, which low end users are unlikely to do much. Very low end Canons have plastic mounts. Anything above the (discontinued) Rebel 2000 has metal mount, just like the Nikons do. I agree with "what feels natural". If you don't like the cmaera, you won't use it, no matter Nikon, Canon, Mamiya, Leica...
I'd agree with the parent on this one -- I started with a K-1000, which was a great camera to learn with. However, when the camera finally died my upgrade options were a) buy another Pentax (and have fewer accessories to choose from) or b) replace all of my lenses (and be broke). It seems that the selection of bodies and lenses are far greater with Canon and Nikon, and these cameras offer more "professional" features. In addition, you can find a lot more nice used Canon and Nikon equipment on eBay.
Long story short, I bought a Canon Eos Elan 7 and I'm thrilled with it. It has a few more of the features that I wanted (bracketing, remote shutter release) and the number of lenses and other accessories now available is awesome. The obligatory shameless plug: Photos are here.
JAMWiki Java-based Wiki engine
The Olympus OM-G is an excelent camera for student purposes, good range of features, turn-off-able auto, realitivly tough, none of that proprietary foolishness for accessories (*cough* cannon *cough*), and realitivly cheap used. But, you're right about Olympus cameras being finicky. Mine has a slight winding problem and dosen't want to work in cold weather.
I hate autofocus cameras!
Maybe this is because I don't own one, but I have yet to find a an auto focus SLR that will switch to manual and give me as much control as my K-1000. The feautres may be there, but inevitably you have to use some stupid lcd or nob with some icons that I don't recognize. Maybe I'm too stupid to figure it out, but I always find myself wishing for a light meter, an apeture dial and a shutter speed nob. That combined with the depth of field lines on the lens give me a whole world of control over my shot. And I can change all of the variables within seconds and even without taking my eye from the lens.
I also find that my friends who have the Auto SLR with a manual mode almost never use the manual mode. And if i ask them how to do a adjust the appeture or shutter speed that give me a dumb look.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
First, go pick up the Complete Kodak Book of Photography. Some of it is a little basic, but it's a good source of tips, and a great comprehensive book. Unfortunately, it seems to be out of print on, but Amazon does have it used. It may have renamed itself or something. Go to a brick and mortar bookstore and browse.
If you're doing developing and printing, you'll want to build your own enlarger. You learn a lot about the process, and you get geek points. For more geek points, build your own timer with a relay that times the exposure on the enlarger.
As far as a camera goes, you want a simple one to start off with. A good SLR will cost a LOT of money, so be prepared to either buy used for your first time, or have some really really nice relatives, or befriend someone who works for Canon. The manual vs automatic debate is -1, Overrated. Any decent "automatic" SLR camera will have a full manual mode. Just because you have the automatic feature doesn't mean you have to use it. As a beginner, you will want to stay in manual mode the whole time to play around, but automatic is useful for quick shots if you're also using it for snapshots. Don't get anything that doesn't at least have an automatic mode. (basically, automatic:manual::emacs:vi. Subsitute the relevant religious arguments)
My first SLR was a used Canon AE-1. ("So simple, anyone can use it!") This was Canon's first automatic exposure (guess what AE stands for) camera. Focus is completely manual, but the f/stop can be set manually or automatically depending on the mode. So it can be a full manual camera if you want. It's a great camera, and you could probably pick one up for cheap these days, though they're getting old enough that they're collectors items, so they might be more expensive. A great, great camera.
If you buy a new camera instead, it may have a built-in pop-up flash (like the Canon Elan series) It'll be crap for anything except snapshots and some indoor photos. If you want to play around with lighting and the like, you want a real flash (sold separately) that attaches to the camera shoe. And a reflector, probably.
For vendors, you'll want to find a local one for most chemicals (since shipping those is a bitch due to regulations). Check your yellow pages. If you have a local photo store (the old fashioned kind, not the kiosk in Wal-Mart), they might be able to point you in the right direction. For equipment, B&H Photo and Video in NY is the way to go (www.bhphotovideo.com). Their catalog is the size of a phonebook and they have a good selection and the BEST customer service I have ever dealt with. 42nd Street Photo is ok, but their customer service folks are surly.
You'll also want to play around with good quality film. Kodak Tri-X pan is still the standard for B&W, especially for entry-level. For slide film (slides are a must if you're taking nature shots - you can't appreciate a sunset over a mountain range in 5x7 foramt), Kodakchrome 64 is still a classic, except it has to be sent back to Kodak for processing. (Although people have told me that's no longer true, and some larger labs can do it, but I didn't think Kodak had licensened the technology - it's a different developing process). I like Fujichrome Sensia and Velvia (The latter is a little better). If you're traveling at all, get a lead pouch or request a hand examination of your film. I had some 400 speed film ruined by the new TSA x-rays recently (despite the claim that they don't effect any film below 1600). Pro films will need to be kept in the fridge until you use them. As will paper. Playing around with high-speed film is fun too, for shooting in the dark with no flash. It'll be very very grainy though.
Oh, and if you plan to take pictures of
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
You're too dependent on your gear, sir. I've shot plenty of (IMHO) quality sports work with my K-1000. There's more than enough exposure latitude in the film you should be using for fast work to allow for snap shooting. That's part of photography that's overlooked by more casual amateurs-- film selection should reflect the intended subject.
... 10 years? I shoot mostly nature work these days, and use a handheld self-powered meter. When your battery dies, you're SOL unless you brought a backup-- and every ounce counts when you're three days from anywhere and carrying everything on your back.
The unmentioned advantages of an all manual camera:
1) Better performance at climate extremes. I don't have to concern myself with anything other than fogging in cold weather. How are your lithium batteries at -10degF?
2) Fewer failure modes. In fact, the K-1000 has no electronic failures. I don't think I've had a battery in mine for
A poster above complained about the 1/60 flash sync. That poster is forgetting that 1/60 is the *standard*. Anything higher than that is a *bonus*, but all cameras default to 1/60; this allows for dumb flashes (rather than electronically synced) to be used to control the exposure rather than using the camera's shutter or aperture.
-- Cerebus
Buy used (only FM-2 is still manufactured)
These cameras have the depth-of-focus preview button which I find indispensable while composing pictures.
(this is the button closing aperture to preset value so you can see what would be in/out of focus on the picture - is the background blurred, etc.)
Especially the Nikons are sturdy, their lenses are comptaible with later models.
I would especially recommend FE-2 for it's convenient light meter display.
Basic 50mm 1.4 lens is handy, but I've chosen 50mm 1.2 to work with.
Dude, you have it so backwards. You pick the lens first, then find a camera that will fit it.
This may sound odd, but it's true. Assuming you know a bit about photography, you know what kind of aperature you'll need based on the kinds of pictures you'll be taking - low light, flash, outdoors, etc. You also know what focal length will suit you best. Look at the major brands - Nikon, Pentax, Cannon, Olympus, etc. and find a lens (or maybe two lenses) that will be your workhorse. Then choose a body you can afford with the idea that it will be your backup body later when you can afford better.Back in the '70s I fell in love with the Olympus 100x2.8. I didn't like the "big nose" effect of a 50mm or 35mm when doing a head shot. A 135mm is big and too long to use indoors. Most 100s and 105s were f4.5 at the time. The 100x2.8 is the same size as most 50mm lenses, so it fits in a regular camera case. Shucks! What's not to like about it? So anyway I got a dealer to substitute the 100x2.8 for the normal 50x1.8 on an OM10 body. It's still my main 35mm camera today.
Based on your personal preferences, pick a lens first, then find your best deal.BTW, the zoom lenses are OK unless you want to do enlargements. Then they seem a bit fuzzy.
You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
"Math in a song is good."-Linford
Quick: 35mm... Consider buying used... Don't be seduced by telephoto lenses- you'll probably fall in love with a good very wide angle and a nice macro lens... Shoot LOTS of pictures and expect to throw most of them away. Details: The 35mm format has survived all sorts of technical and market challenges- 35mm film is going to be available for quite some time at very convenient locations. The same cannot be said for 120, 220, 70mm, 4x5 (sigh, I love 4x5)... Used equipment is indeed a gamble, but there are plenty of reputable sources and some good bargains. Asahi and Honeywell Pentaxes come to mind. These have an older, screw-type, lens mount (not the same as newer Pentaxes) so you'll have to forage for lenses too. The Takumar lenses (Pentax) are very well respected. MANY NEWER CAMERAS USE PLASTIC PARTS. Plastic just does not wear as well as metal. If you buy used, you are buying "used" (as in worn). If you buy low-end new, you are buying "used very soon." Of course, are you buying an heirloom or a useful tool (even if short term)? Believe it or not, most professional photographers lease their equipment. Even the much vaunted, tank-like Hasselblads do not last long in the professional environment. The combination of use and sheer abuse quickly does in any product. Cameras are a bit like manual razors: the razor-handle/camera-body is what you buy and the blades/lenses are what you get scammed on. Telephoto lenses are the sexy products, but except for certain applications, they are not very useful. For 35mm photography, I like a very wide angle lens (low 20's in focal length) and a macro lens (able to focus close up). The only longer lenses I could recommend would be a 100mm (good for portraits) and, optionally-ONLY, something much longer. Quality control is not what you might expect. Several tests have shown that the variance between different samples of the same brand of lens is such that it completely obscures any differences between brands themselves. And that brings me to "mind set." One of the greatest photographers is Cartier Bresson. Go look him up and check out his pictures. He uses a very simple outfit that is reputed to be just a "normal" lens on a manual 35mm camera (admittedly a primo Leica, but he started with a cardboard box camera). I am not sure he uses even a light meter. His brilliance is in being able to see the picture just before it happens and to "be there" to catch it. When you think about it, he's kind of like a great baseball player- he reflexively positions himself to snare the moment. How did he get to be so good? Certainly there is inate talent there. It was sharpened by shooting a gazillion images. That's what you have to do. Conclusions- Do your homework. Pick a camera that has a reasonable reputation for some reliability (don't be flim-flammed by gadgetry). Buy it. Shoot a LOT of pictures and throw most of them away. The remainder should form quite a collection of gems. If you have to throw the camera away in a few years, do so- you bought it once, you can do so again. At least you'll have the images, you'll have developed an eye, an d you'll have a great time. Best!
You'll start off taking lots of photos, so get cheap film to start, ala Costco. Pick up a couple of good photo technique books. A good book will discuss The Rule of Thirds, lighting and bracketing, and picture composition.
You'll soon learn what your camera and lense are capable of and won't be wasting a lot of film.
My current: Minolta 700xi with a 50mm f1.4. I prefer it over my Minolta 450si with 28-200mm. That is until I get my 200mm APO. To each camera a different purpose though.
One of the most popular: a Nikon FM2. Lots of lenses and been around for a long time. Good workhorse for wedding photographers who aren't using a medium format SLR.
Two pieces of advice:
r -n ikon.shtml
- Spend more money on your lens than on your body. In fact, don't get a cheap kit lens that comes with a camera. Buy a decent body that has the features you need but don't throw away money on a poor quality lens. If you can't afford the lenses you need right now, save. But don't waste money on a poor quality lens. I was given this advice when I bought my first 35mm SLR. I ignored it (on grounds of cost) and now I've had to replace the lens anyway with one that produces decent image quality. While zooms are flexible, primes are often great value for money in terms of image quality.
- When you buy a 35mm SLR you aren't buying a camera. You're buying a system. While there are good arguments for all the systems, IMO the Canon EOS system is the one with the best options for the future. A big part of the reason for this is Canon's current dominance of the digital SLR market. If you buy into the EOS system, you have a clear upgrade path to a DSLR. Yes, Nikon 35mm lenses will work with their DSLRs but Nikon seems to be headed down the path to sub-35mm digital sensors as a standard and is therefore bringing out lenses which will not work on your film SLR. (Canon have done this too but not for any serious lens, just as a way of selling cheap cameras.) Canon's clear intention is towards full-frame DSLR sensors and ultimately that's what most photographers want. Anyway, it's a complex issue and my overall point is, be careful what system you choose. It's not the body that matters but the lenses and there are really only two big 35mm system at the moment (Canon and Nikon) and Canon's EOS seems like the one with the best future. All the people who've bought into the other systems will now flame me but look into the facts for yourself. One opinion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/whithe
I don't think this is entirely fair to digital. I don't see how taking lots of pictures is a huge impediment to learning. In fact taking lots of pictures is exactly what you need to do.
If your camera has a RAW mode the only processing it will do is white balance. Most of the better digitals will let you adjust your white balance manually. Is it different then film? Yes. But if you're manually adjusting the white balance you're learning.
Digital offers some additional help in learning that you can't get from a film camera.
* Immediate feedback. You can get an idea if the picture you took is under or over exposed.
* The camera keeps track of the settings for you courtesy of EXIF. So when you lose your notebook you've still got the information you need.
* Histograms can be really useful in learning.
I'd agree that the automatic features are tempting to use and hurt your ability to learn the fundamentals. But if you get something reasonably new in a 35mm SLR you're going to find it has those issues too. So this isn't anything specific to digital (though all the digitals have this functionality). Basically, if you want to learn how to shoot good photos you need to learn the fundamentals and that means having some commitment to actually learning them. This is of course not unique to photography but true of most anything.
I will agree that the lense on the Digital Rebel isn't so hot. In fact I wouldn't recommend the Digital Rebel to anyone because you lose some of the flexibility of adjusting the camera how you want. But it's also not like most entry level cameras (which is exactly what the Digital Rebel is) come with great lenses, this is equally true of film camera/lense bundles.
Basically you're ignoring all the benefits of digital to learning. While at the same time critizing it for things that to some degree are equally true of film. That's not to say that digital is a great platform compared to film for learning. I'm just inclined to think you're picking on the wrong issues or at least coming across that way to me.
Right now I'd say there are a couple of fair problems with Digital for beginners:
* Price. A Digital SLR that gives you the flexibility to learn on is expensive. Right now digital cameras that are affordable for most people are probably point and shoots. This price may be traded off by film expenses however. It really depends on how much you plan on using the camera. However, we're starting to see the Digital SLR price drop. My original D30 was about twice as expensive as my 10D which is a better camera. This trend will continue and eventually the price negative will be against film.
* Focal Length Multiplier. Right now just about every digital camera has a smaller sensor than the size of 35mm film. For the Digital Rebel and the 10D this results in a multiplier of 1.6. This means if you want to take wide angle shots you'll need to buy a significantly more expensive lens to achieve the same effect. Say you want a 24mm lense for wide angle (a reasonable starter lense for wide angle work). You'd now have to buy a 15mm lense or shorter to get the same effect. Sooner or later though the multiplier effect will be removed by newer equipment.
* Accurate reproduction after the shot. It's difficult to get a computer and monitor adjusted so it properly reproduces the image you took. Many people really don't bother to do this at all. Which is a problem for digital. Is it your settings on the camera or is it your monitor that's making the shot look wrong? I think as people use computers more and more for digital media awareness and technology will help with this issue.
So right now film is probably the more affordable way to learn. But it has its own trade offs. Film costs, processing costs, having to write down camera settings so you can see what works and doesn't work, lack of immediate feedback, etc...
Frankly either way is fair way to learn. It just takes the committment, effort and the money (equipment and lenses aren't cheap really either way) to do it.
I have an N80, and you can set the ISO on that. Only cameras lesser than the N80 don't have that feature :)
Chris
"You just spend a fortune on the initial camera. Amazon's store (Electronics > Camera & Photo > Categories > Film Cameras > SLR Cameras > Manual SLR Cameras) has cameras centered about $250, with one $161. The least expensive digital SLR I've seen is I think ~$800. The difference then is about 50 rolls of film. I don't think I've shot that many in my life."
50 rolls? 50 rolls? That's only 1,800 shots. You'll never learn to shoot on a budget like that.
If you want to get good at photography, the only way to do it is to take THOUSANDS of photographs, and learning by doing what works and what doesn't. This means either buying film in bulk and loading it yourself (which I did for years, and isn't as fun as it sounsd) or go digital.
You _might_ make a case for shooting black and white, since it's way cheaper to buy the film, and you can print it yourself, which is a great education.
If you're serious about photography, though, and want color, the costs aren't even close. You can get a great digital camera for around $500 (e.g. the Canon G2 or G3) or the new Digital Rebel DSLR for $1,000, and then be able to experiment like crazy at ZERO COST. Even better than saving money in the long run, it means that you can exeriment fearlessly, which means that you can take more risks and learn more.
My advice, since you don't want to spend a lot of money up front, would be to get an all-in-one digital camera. Make sure that it gives you good manual control, has a fairly large lens, and at least a little zoom for flexibility. Something like a used Canon G2, for $400 or so.
If you find out that you aren't into it, you can always sell it on eBay and get most of your money back. It's amazing, but old G2's are selling for $400, when you can get a G5 for just over $500!
And if you get addicted, you'll start saying things like "I can't believe that the Digital Rebel costs only $1,000 with a lens" and "But if I get a Nikon D2H, not only can I use all my Nikkor lenses, but the camera can use 802.11 to FTP the photo's right to my server while I'm shooting!"
At least it's cheaper than boating.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I've only looked at about 45 of the posts on here, so I might be repeating some of the stuff already mentioned.
About the Pentax K1000: It is a great camera and you saw a lot of students using these. They stopped making it in about 1996 or 1997 because it was time to remanufacture the molds used in assembling (casting) and Pentax wasn't turning enough revenue off of the K1000 itself. That's the story I got from another sales guy when I worked at a camera shop in high school and college (late 1990's).
Anyway, you could buy this thing at just about any department store or camera shop up until then. Lots of other companies made lenses for the Pentax K-Mount. Ricoh made some pretty neat bodies to accept K-Mount lenses and some lenses of their own also.
It would be an okay system to go with, but if you are serious (even a serious amatuer) about photography, you do not want to touch any brand except Nikon or Canon. The other brands make some good stuff (Olympus OM series, Minolta, Pentax) and some REALLY good stuff (Contax, bow your heads). But if you want availability in both new and used lenses and bodies, you will have the best luck with Canon or Nikon.
And here is why Nikon might be a little better. Nikon's manual and autofocus gear is reasonably interchange-able. That is, any lense that is an AIS lense (I think that's the right acronym) will work on a modern body or an older one. I guess the difference has to do with how the apeture position is fed back to the camera body. The oldest Nikons use a big silver shoe that connected to a lever in the viewfinder prism assembly. This was how the light meter 'knew' what the setting of the apeture.
The later AIS lenses use a little notch in the aperture ring itself.
Anyway, too much information on a tangent that we need not explore on this website. In summary, when Canon created their autofocus stuff, their bayonet mounts basically reversed. Nikon's mounts have always stayed the same. Manual focus Canon lenses will not work without a convertor.
I've seen a lot of suggestion for the good old Nikon work horse bodies. But really, even those bodies might cost more than $200 with a F1.8 50mm. You might be able to get an F1, but that is getting too old (and out of the AIS lenses).
Something to consider is the Nikon FM10. It is a manual camera with an electronic shutter. Really, as far as Nikons go, it is a cheap piece of plastic, but it will get you in the system and teach you everything you need to know about f-stops and shutter speeds (even depth of field preview I think) without breaking the bank. Keep it in your camera bag after you get your F100 and give it to your kids to learn photography. It might look and feel cheap, but if you take care it, it will last.
I think that looking at F3's and FM2n's is worth it, but don't expect to get one for under $200 unless it is: 1.) broken 2.) the person selling it has no idea what it's worth. For Case 2, BUY IT AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAN GET!
Other things to consider:
I know I just tried to create another Nikon convert, but I would seriously consider looking into which company (Nikon or Canon) is presenting a better (for YOU!) variety of digital SLR bodies. Canon has one for about $1000 right now called the EOS Rebel Digital something. Nikon has the D100 (either D100 or D10, I can't recall) in the same megapixel range for about $1400 or $1500. If Canon is going to be the brand putting more digital bang for the buck in the hands of the serious amatuer, you should consider giving them a look.
Sigma has some cool digital stuff with their purchase of the patent on FEON CMOS chips, but it's Sigma and well... it's Sigma.
Try this site for more photo infomation:
http://www.photo.net/
I recommend the articles by Philip Greenspun in the beginners and equipement sections. He is a geek (I mean this most kindly) and a photographer. Good stuff. Good luck!
Ok, I'm not going to claim to be a photography guru or anything. I leave that to my girlfriend.
But I've had my Nikon N70 for 6 years now, and I wouldn't give it up for anything. It's like a trusty weapon. I know it inside and out. I can handle shooting bands playing live in bars and couples playing in a park with it.
Now the body cost more than $200 at the time and it has some fancy feautres, which I never use. I'm mostly spening my time in Apeture or Shutter Speed priority mode when shooting moving objects or in Manual mode when I have the time to compose a shot. I've used a few SLRs in my day. Older model Pentax, Nikons and newer Canons. Not to slag the older models, I took some beautiful shots with them, but the built in light meters were worse than guessing in my experience.
The Canon EOSes I've used felt very... well... plastic. The physical interface, placement of buttons and knobs, was unnatural, and I was less than impressed with the quality of the lenses that were available to me for use with them. I assume there are better out there, but they weren't sturdy and a little flakey when zooming too far in or out.
My Nikon I love and take pretty good care of. I've used lenses from a few manufacturers, but I've only been happy with the Nikon lenses I've actually purchased. Be careful, though. Some of the newer models are pretty poorly manufactured, ie. mostly plasic. But, the older AF Nikkor lenses are still built the same way and are a pleasure to shoot with. They've just introduced a lower end line intermixed with with the mid-level line they had. You'll know because they will encompass a much greater X mm. range and be cheaper.
As for the digital vs. film debate, there's a lot more to it than just price, etc. My girlfriend just got to borrow the Cannon digital Rebel, and although it was the nicest digital I'd ever used, it still was an overpriced piece of crap. F-Stop, shutter speed, etc. are located all on the back of the camera, which is unnatural and causes the phtographer to have to pull the camera away from their face to get their fingers in there entirely too often. The quality was good, but it still had that digital effect that I can't stand.
Ok, I'll go more into this. For certain things I'll pick a nicer Fujii film. It picks up those greens and blues so well, and for others I'll go with a Kodak, to get skintones, etc. Sometimes I like shooting black and white (like a nice 1600 or 3200 for shooting bands or photojournalism style work). I like being able to choose whether I want clear/grainy, black+white/color, slide/negative, etc. I just don't have that flexibility with a digital camera. And my scanned negatives work (usually) better than any digital photo, for when I want to play in photoshop. I often get my girlfiend to just develop the nagitives (she works in a camera shop if you haven't picked up on that) and scan them to a CD for me. Then I may print one or two off a roll. Overall it would cost me about $7-$10 per roll.
But anyway, it almost doesn't matter so much about what is a "good" SLR. Run around to camera shops, talk to your friends. Borrow a few and shoot a roll with them. See which one feels good to you. You'll get to know and love the camera over time. You'll know all of its quirks and then you'll get to know how to handle different films. Technical shit only matters so much in the field. 2D cameras are, by nature, limited. It's what you do with those limitations that makes a snapshot a photograph. I've taken great (and horrible) pictures with a Kodak I have circa 1930something.
Not only are pentax lenses and bodies massively cross-compatible within their own timeframe, but most modern pentax bodies are backwards compatible to their older lenses, as Pentax kept the bayonet mount when they moved to autofocus lenses. This means that you can take almost any Pentax lens on the market, new or used, and make it work on most modern pentax bodies. Can't say that for Canon, can we?
I have mounted the 50mm stock lens from my mother's K-1000 (older than I am!) on my MZ-5n (ZX-5n for you americans in the house) and it worked just fine.
For someone who wants manual focus, I would sugest the MZ-M (ZX-M in the states). It is basically a modern version of the K-1000, but it can be used in automatic exposure modes (aperature priority, shutterspeed priority, or full on automatic).
Seriously, I wouldn't recommend buying a new manual focus SLR, unless you're really strapped for cash, or have an asshat professor that insists on it. Almost all SLR bodies can turn the autofocus off, and revert to manual focus. I was considering the MZ-M myself, as I just wanted a new K-1000, but I decided that having the ability to leave it in autofocus might be the difference between capturing a moment, and wasting a frame.
In regards to the ask slashdot, I seriously suggest that you check out your local camera shops. Hit 3 or 4 of them, and talk to a salesgeek. Everyone has their pet brand and favorite camera (I, too, am guilty of reaching for certain brands in our showcase automatically.) There's nothing wrong with that, as long as you end up making a well-informed decision. Any serious retailer should be willing to teach you a bit about how a 35mm SLR works, and break down the differences between the brands and models without expecting you to buy on the spot.
kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
First off, 50 rolls of film is nothing. I can easily shoot two or three rolls a week and that's between working full time, taking a night class, and spending time with my wife. That said, a 36 exposure roll of Kodak Tri-X is only $2.
Besides, the camera body isn't the expensive part of photography. Quality prints and lenses are the expensive part and that doesn't change between digital and film.
The least expensive digital SLR I've seen is I think ~$800.
SLRs are a necessary evil for film-based cameras because of the idiosyncracies of film. For digital cameras, the SLR design makes much less sense. A non-SLR digital camera will easily give you a bright, sharp 28-110mm zoom. So, just get a 5 Mpixel camera with a good lens and don't worry about SLRs for digital.
The difference then is about 50 rolls of film. I don't think I've shot that many in my life.
If you haven't, you should. And digital makes it possible. Anybody serious about photography can easily go through that within a few days.
I just sold my old digital. A Canon Powershot G2 that was 18-months old. I'd taken 19,500 photos with it. The equivalent of 540 rolls of film. About $6k worth by your calculations.
Before I'd gotten it I'd shot maybe five rolls of film. I was always wondering if a shot was worth it ("Girlfriend's cute, but I already got a picture last week.") Then, they'd sit around months or years until I got around to getting them developed. I didn't know anything about photography because what little feedback I had was so far after the shot.
Digital changed it all. I got a nice camera with all the manual overrides and full manual mode and I just started taking pictures. Lots of pictures.